Abstract
My first policy on taking over editorship of the JRSM was to only consider online submissions. A few authors considered this decision to be unfair but the JRSM now only receives submissions via its electronic system, called Manuscript Central, which can be reached either directly (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrsm) or from the Journal's online homepage (www.jrsm.rsmjournals.com). Submissions are rising and the overwhelming majority of authors find their own way to the submission system without a nudge from me.
Over the past few months, this has also been the route for submission of correspondence but, as of the beginning of June, the JRSM has a new policy for letters – and it is an exciting one. Electronic letters, or rapid responses, as the BMJ first conceived them, have gained in popularity. The internet offers opportunity for immediate response, a distinct improvement on waiting for weeks and months for the half–remembered debate on published work.
The JRSM now joins other contemporary journals by introducing electronic responses, called Quick Comments. Readers will be able to visit the website and post a response to any article electronically. The response will be screened by an editor before posting on the website. We will aim to post these Comments within 24 hours of submission. Comments published on the website will then be used to select letters for the next issue of the print version of the JRSM. Standalone letters, in other words those unrelated to a published JRSM article, will not be posted as an electronic response and in line with current policy will not be considered for publication in the print version of the JRSM, barring exceptional circumstances.
Authors should no longer submit letters via Manuscript Central or by emailing me directly. You will simply be asked to post your letter as a Quick Comment. While JRSM's policy will be to allow debate to flourish and resist censorship, electronic responses that are abusive, libellous, off topic or trivial will not be posted. All electronic letters may be edited. And, according to tradition and pragmatism, the editor’s decision will be final.
The introduction of electronic responses reaffirms the JRSM's desire to be at the heart of the debate on UK clinical medicine and healthcare. It is also another important step in the electronic evolution of this Journal. I urge you to vent your anger, delight and disgruntlement at what you read in these pages and online. It is the way of science and it is the way of the web.